I can't believe this article was allowed. How have we come to this, that light hearted fictional stories written to entertain people, could actually teach us something? What, 'how to write successful fictions, perhaps?'

I am surprised that License to Kill did not make it into this study. Surely it's the most realistic plan in any film. Making cocaine into petrol and smuggling it like that. They already smuggle cocaine in liquid form in vodka bottles.

"When Soviet diplomats were abducted in Lebanon by Islamic terrorists in 1985, the KGB countered by kidnapping and dismembering the family members of the people responsible. All of the Soviet hostages were released in short order."

Opportunity missed! The Soviets could instead have set up TSA and got their grubby paws on billions of public money.

Presumably the next Bond film will involve David Cameron deploying 007 to foil Dr Schaeuble's hairbrained scheme to dominate the eurozone currency by unleashing his biohazardous recipe for fiscal consolidation. Dr Schauble is about to join Skaramanga's reputational score

All these villains are idiots. All they had to do was to massively overspeculate and overleverage on the financial markets, and, Hey Presto! they send the West into a tailspin. And what's more, we all know that it works.

What's extortion in economic terms? A lump sum tax arbitrarily worked out (would love to know how they calculate a figure) and charged by the villanous fiends. What got the state's goat was "oh look, we have competition!" And the state hates competition when it comes to taxes. So Bond is sent to ensure sole eminence of a state monopoly. Its pretty much the same for bond clones in cinema around the world.
As far as the cited example of the KGB goes, I don't suppose the KGB head was a game theorist who knew 'tit for tat' is the most effective response strategy. It vaguely reminds me of a movie where Schwarznegger plays a Soviet cop who teams up with an NYPD (?) colleague to battle crime. The NYPD guy uses regular methods to get the bad guys to confess; whereas Arnie beats the living daylights out of criminials to get instantenous confessions.

"'tit for tat' is the most effective response strategy".
I think the most effective strategy is to escalate violence in rather limited steps until the price the other guy has to pay is too high. Going to extreme lengths as an opening gambit runs the risk of the other guy thinking he has nothing to lose and throwing the kitchen sink at you.

"most effective strategy is to escalate violence in rather limited steps"
Right said, nonferrous. It could well depend on the relative stature of one side with respect to the other. I wonder if any game theory analysis of the Soviet (and now Russian response) to terror is available. A comparison with American, European strategies would also be insightful.

The Rand corporation had come out with a useful study on how all terror groups end. The most effective end is when their political goals are met.

"Mr Scaramanga’s scheme to set up a private power plant would have been quite profitable had he not alerted the British government of his intentions by literally mailing a golden bullet marked “007” to MI6 headquarters."

Scaramanga did not send the bullet; Andrea (Maud Adams) did in order to get Bond to come after Scaramanga.

"When Soviet diplomats were abducted in Lebanon by Islamic terrorists in 1985, the KGB countered by kidnapping and dismembering the family members of the people responsible. All of the Soviet hostages were released in short order."

______________________________

Why did the Soviets NOT suffer from decades of Islamic Terror?

Answer: Because they had a simple straight forward approach to Terrorism that works. And a simple solution will work today.

If the West had the courage to implement it,
THEN it will END THE WAR ON TERROR within months!
_______________________________

There is very little response to the delivery of a duffle bag of frightened pained decapitated heads rolling about the floor.

=> The alternative is fleets of passenger planes blowing up in fiery explosions for generations and human remains reduced to cat food sized chunks harvested by tweezers placed into ziploc evidence bags.

The US understands this, but is unable to implement the terror themselves due to the negative publicity they would face abroad. That means that they prop up various regiemes that are able to institute these cruel mesures on their behalf while remaining autonomous enough for the US to deny culpability.
The US cannot defeat the taliban because they will not threaten civilians who summit to the taliban and obey them. The hope is that the 2014 afghanistan government will be able to. Look at the US fight against leftist rebells in Latin America in the 60's 70's and 80's and the US support of the mesures that the governments imposed.

But you have to come up with a method to make money personally from it. (Or get political power. Maybe by leading the clean up afterwards?) Just pulling down civilization around your own ears isn't much of a goal.

I instructed them to send me a hundred billion dollars once they were in power. Problem is, the fools don't know how many zeros there are in a billion. The check bounced when the amount written turned out to be greater than the global money supply.

What a whimsical piece...and a great patriotic tribute to Britain, its people and its government agencies. M.C.K. is William Hague in disguise. What a marvel.

Now if Britain is so good why doesn't it take greater responsibility on the world stage. It has a history of looking after its own interests. But now needs to put its head above the parapet and stand shoulder to shoulder with European countries of similar weight. Be a leading light. What a marvel it would be for Britain to use its foreign policy and defence experience in Europe. The creation of a EI6 based upon MI6 model would surely make Britain, Europe and the world a safer place. Using the resources of Europe to support Bond-like counter villainy.

Britain has a duty and a responsibility to play this leading role. Britain must not shirk or hide from fear or doubt, nor must it miss the opportunity. I suspect Britain doesn't have the cojones to play a leadership role.